3.c) Laws of Mendel

The theory of Mendel, contrary to that of Darwin, has always been a clear and simple example of the application of inductive reasoning. Some controlled experiments give place to a refutable theoretical interpretation. However, we must keep in mind the existing knowledge at the time.

Usually, there is no attempt to present the laws of Mendel as a theory of evolution –due to the distortion of the meaning of evolution– since just a combination of genes does not produce different traits from the originals.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) (Public domain image)
Gregor Mendel (Public domain)

The fact that the laws of Mendel introduce previously unknown elements or mechanisms does not help the theory of Darwin much either. It is no surprise the scientific community ignored Mendel’s contribution for 50 years; hard to understand without the help sociology of science offers us.

Due to the dynamics evolution implies, and given the multiple advantages of sexual differentiation, the General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life understands that the laws of Mendel or, in general, the theory of Mendel has provided a remarkable contribution to the theory of evolution in its correct meaning. Moreover, it maintains its applicability with appropriate conceptual corrections.

Initial interpretation of the laws of inheritance does not raise any problems since it is accepted and general advancement of science has updated it; however, what can indeed pose some serious problems is the way in which schools keep explaining the theory of Mendel.

Teaching approach of the concept of the dominant and recessive gene in the laws of Mendel is a little archaic, and there can be conceptual difficulties, such as “What happens when two dominant genes come together?” The academy resorts to concepts like co-dominance because the genetic mechanisms, which are unknown, make it so that a gene or piece of individual genetic code behaves as if it is dominant or recessive. Nonetheless, scientists know those genetic mechanisms, at least partially, but they cannot elucidate them straightforwardly based on the simple concept of dominance within the context of general randomness.

A little more difficult to clarify, with the classic ideas of laws of Mendel, would be the concept of co-recession.

From the Conditional Evolution, the concepts of dominant and recessive genes derived from the laws of Mendel alter by their essence on the evolutionary process. A gene is not dominant or recessive, but instead, it behaves like it is dominant or recessive depending on which another gene is working –the classic thought shares this idea. However, a new concept contributed by the alternative theory of Conditional Evolution is that the behavior depends on the restrictions or conditions of development of the genetic information. We can cite as the most common example the verification or non-verification of the genetic information between the two sources.

Currently, due to the relevancy of Mendel’s laws, it cannot be enough to say a gene is dominant or recessive; there have to be arguments explaining the causes why a gene acts dominant or not. Mostly, the concept maintains its original meaning because the idea of genes having discrete characteristics –red, white, pink, but not shades in full evolution. Again, it is more convenient for the prevailing the mistaken notion of evolution.

Basic concepts of dominant gene and recessive gene in the laws of Mendel cease making sense and, in the event of maintaining some reason, they turn out to be incorrect. As we will see later, the so-called recessive gene ends up being the most powerful when the verification is one of the conditions associated with the genetic information transmitted. Consequently, the Conditional Evolution changes terminology, categorizing the gene that behaving as a dominant gene as a significant gene.

There is a brief description of the Theory of Mendel in chapter 9.